 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / July 2005Dr. Bates and the Helmholtz Theory
Dear Prevention minded friends, Subject: Just the facts this time. In making a statement about the proven behavior of the natural eye, I present only facts -- not theories. Or as Bates said: "This book aims to be a collection of facts and not of theories, and insofar as it is, I do not fear successful contradiction." Thus my statement that the natural (primate) eye is dynamic is confirmed by the scientific facts that are collected -- concerning it. I regret the historic mis-understading of these objective facts, for as Bates further said: "In the science of ophthalmology, theories, OFTEN STATED AS FACTS, have served both to obscure the truth and throttle investigation for more than a hundred years." And so the problem of initating effective prevention continues -- because of the distorting theory that the eye's behavior can be represented by a "frozen" box camera. It seems that the researcher can disect the dead eye and identify all the parts by name. He then "hangs" all the parts of the dead eye on this box-camera theory and concludes that the eye can not possibly change its refractive status as the "enviroment" is changed because a box-camera can't do it! They forget that you can never draw conclusions about the dynamic living eye -- by disecting a dead eye. You determine the true behavior of the living natural eye by OBJECTIVELY TESTING the natural living eye on an "input" versus "output" basis. That is how you do it -- and just report the true facts about refractive change accurately. You can then draw your own conclusions (for better or worse) on the scientific facts themselves concerning the proven behavior of the primate eye. Best, Otis _____________________ The Cure of Imperfect Sight by Treatment Without Glasses By W. H. BATES, M.D. CENTRAL FIXATION PUBLISHING CO. NEW YORK CITY Copyright, 1920 By W. H. BATES, M.D. PRESS OF THOS. B. BROOKS, INC. NEW YORK PREFACE This book aims to be a collection of facts and not of theories, and insofar as it is, I do not fear successful contradiction. When explanations have been offered it has been done with considerable trepidation, because I have never been able to formulate a theory that would withstand the test of the facts either in my possession at the time, or accumulated later. The same is true of the theories of every other man, for a theory is only a guess, and you cannot guess or imagine the truth. No one has ever satisfactorily answered the question, "Why ?" as most scientific men are well aware, and I did not feel that I could do better than others who had tried and failed. One cannot even draw conclusions safely from facts, because a conclusion is very much like a theory, and may be disproved or modified by facts accumulated later. In the science of ophthalmology, theories, often stated as facts, have served both to obscure the truth and throttle investigation for more than a hundred years. The explanations of the phenomena of sight put forward by Young, von Graefe, Helmholtz and Donders have caused us to ignore or explain away a multitude of facts which otherwise would have led to the discovery of the truth about errors of refraction and the consequent prevention of an incalculable amount of human misery. As there has been a considerable demand for the book from the laity, an effort has been made to present the subject in such a way as to be intelligible to persons unfamiliar with ophthalmology. W. H. BATES, M.D. > Dear Prevention minded friends, > > Subject: Just the facts this time. <snipped drivel> Dear Friends, Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the medical profession and not in the position to give medical advice. Thank you! Allen Dear friends, Otis is confused. he is still posting about books published in the 1920's as if they contain revelations about science and vision. sadly he ignors that all the theories proposed by Dr. Bates have been evaluated years ago and found to be invalid. Otis still believes the world is flat! please disregard his rantings. he is just a gentlemanly old fool. see for yourself. http://www.geocities.com/neil0502/Oda_May_Brown.html Congratulations. You have just passed sci.med.vision 101. DrG As usual Allen has taken on the job of "protecting" you from objective scientific truth. Do you really need that kind of "protection" -- or can you think for youself and draw logical conclusions for the objective facts themselves. I believe you can -- Allen believes that you are too dumb to figure out this for yourself. The issue if fundamental scientific preception of the natural eye as a dynamic system, and about rational analysis about what is measured concerning the primate's eyes behavior. You must still wish to conclude (on a scientific level) that there is no relationship between the refractive state of the natural eye -- and its average visual enviroment -- but you should not let other people even ATTEMPT to tell you what you should believe. Best, Otis > As usual Allen has taken on the > job of "protecting" you from > objective scientific truth. "Conspiracy" theories are a hallmark of pseudoscience. > Do you really need that kind of > "protection" -- or can you think > for youself and draw logical > conclusions for the objective > facts themselves. And since human studies contradict your "objective facts"? > I believe you can -- Allen believes > that you are too dumb to > figure out this for yourself. He's part of the conspiracy. > The issue if fundamental > scientific preception of the > natural eye as a dynamic system, > and about rational analysis about > what is measured concerning > the primate's eyes behavior. And the logical fallacy that all primates behave the same at all ages? > You must still wish to conclude > (on a scientific level) that there [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > people even ATTEMPT to > tell you what you should believe. Which is YOU telling us what we should believe. -MT Otis: You're a hoot! You may as well say "Hey - I have this fantastic termite killer! It's only been tested on mosquitos, but go ahead - use it!" DW As you wish. If you wish to "bound the problem" then you "push back" and work to determine if the natural eye is dyanmic on an "input' versus "output" basis. i.e., determine if the natural primate eye follows its average visual enviroment -- as you would expect from a cybernetic concept. But if you don't get the concept -- well then, yes -- the science of is will leave you cold. The ODs have alread decleared that all scientific primate data is null and void, so that leaves the scientific field wide open. Best, Otis > If you wish to "bound the problem" then you "push back" Huh? better take another Thorazine > i.e., determine if the natural primate eye follows > its average visual enviroment -- as you would expect > from a cybernetic concept. why not just test some real humans and see if it works? Oh, by the way, thats been done and plus lenses don't work! > But if you don't get the concept -- well then, > yes -- the science of is will leave you cold. Huh? > The ODs have alread decleared that all scientific > primate data is null and void, so that > leaves the scientific field wide open. No, it's just that if human data is available, we'd prefer to pay attention to that instead. Now just go off and play with your chicken, monkey, and "cybernetic" concepts. Dear RM, It is clear that you will not put your concept that the minus lens has no effect on the refractive state of the eye -- so you tell all to IGNORE all the scientific facts, and say "trust me -- the natural eye is not dynamic and the minus is "perfectly safe". Certainly the minus is easy to use. No one argues that point. The issue is the "secondary" effect -- which you totally ignore -- because of the obvious consequences to the person -- when he recognizes them. At least Raphaelson and other ODs have had the guts to spell these effects and consequences out on a scientific level. The issues is not the scientific facts -- it is your preference for totally ignoring them -- and asking others to do the same thing. Best, Otis > Dear RM, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > facts, and say "trust me -- the natural eye is not > dynamic and the minus is "perfectly safe". No-- it's you who ignors the scientific facts. Show me statistically-valid human studies (not "one-off" anecdotal case reports) where minus lenses are shown to cause myopia progression. HINT-- there aren't any! Show me statistically-valid human studies (not "one-off" anecdotal case reports) where plus lenses are shown to prevent myopio progression. HINT-- there aren't any! If fact, there is a study that shows that overcorrection of myopes with minus lenses seems to have a reducing effect on myopia progression, but you just ignor that because you are incapable of accepting proof that anything except YOUR point of view is correct. > The issue is the "secondary" effect -- which you > totally ignore -- I wouldn't ignor it if it were proven to be true. What proof do you have that this "secondary" effect occurs in humans? (HINT-- there isn't any). > At least Raphaelson and other ODs have had the > guts to spell these effects and consequences out > on a scientific level. I guess they don't have the guts to do scientific studies and publish anything. I also guess they don't have the guts to come here themselves and post their opinions directly. > The issues is not the scientific facts -- Oh yes it is-- that's exactly what it's about. >it is your > preference for totally ignoring them -- and asking > others to do the same thing. No, for the fifteenth billion time, we ask YOU to please provide the data that minus lenses have a negative effect in humans, and that plus lenses prevent it!! It's YOU who ignors the data. The studies have been done and the data shows you are wrong! It has been pointed out to you countless times in this forum. You are simply a stubborn old fool Otis. I don't have time to waste with discussions with someone who is incapable of logical thought. >> If you wish to "bound the problem" then you "push back" > > Huh? better take another Thorazine ... Why do you feel compelled to respond in kind? I can understand feeling an obligation to point out to unsuspecting/naive readers that this may not be based on fact and incorrect but why can't you refrain from "feeding the troll"? You do not seem to mind taking the effort to reply to these posts and the membership seems to be pretty mature. I'd propose that you make a boiler plate response post with a disclaimer and a few pointers to reference material and post that (and only that) in response to each. With no other response than that the probability of it dying out will be much greater. Just a thought. -Quick You are correct. And I have done what you proposed previously. It's just that after awhile Otis and his moronic zealot rambling gets under my skin. I should have better self control. Sorry for feeding the troll. I'm done, again. Thanks. ---------- >>> If you wish to "bound the problem" then you "push back" >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > -Quick I get the concept - I just think that the validity of extending evidence done on primates to support theories surrounding humans is tenuous AT BEST. The physical construction of the eye may be very similar, but the behaviors and habits of the organism should be factored in as well - expecially if part of your argument contends that behavior early in life can have long-term effects. Show a study containing HUMAN subjects and not PRIMATES, and you'll be far more convincing. Oh well. I'm not saying anything that hasn't been argued several times before, so I don't expect my point of view to have much effect. It all reminds me of an old sitcom episode - one character was extolling his grand campaigns at the game of Risk: "And then I rolled a 5 and a 2, and he rolled a 3 and a 4, and then I rolled 2 3's..." The other character interrupted him, saying "I just don't see how you can be so blind to the fact that you're boring the pants off us with all of your Risk talk - we're just not interested!" the first character looked at the second guy, paused quite thoughtfully, and said "And THEN, I rolled a 4 and a 6, and he rolled a 3 and a 2"... Not that what you're arguing is _boring_... but I just find it odd that in spite of all the calls for additional evidence which supports an extension of your views to human subjects based on admittedly primate-based evidence, you just seem content to say the SAME THINGS over and over. Do you not see that repeating the same bits of evidence in the face of calls for better support does not add credibility to your views? I dunno - I just find that interesting is all. it's not only that he says the same things over and over. he has been presented with scientific data on humans (not chickens or baboons) which flatly disprove his ideas. the theory he proposes is an old one from the 60s and 70s and it was thereafter investigated and disproven several times in statistically-valid scientific studies. regardless of being presented with this proof from numerous people on multiple occasions, Otis continues to state and restate his opinions. thats why everyone gets fed up with him. sadly, he is just a sick old "troll" who posts in this newsgroup to get attention whether it be good or bad. best to ignor him, although its hard! Yeah. I learned that the hard way. I once encountered a troll in a buy/sell group who had taken it upon himself to reinvent the Internet from the ground up, starting with a wee little newsgroup. He started dictating how things should be run in the group, how sales should be made, bla bla bla. A flame war erupted, he began threatening court action, began calling people at home, began going to people's houses - it all became extremely sobering once it was realized he had weapons charges in his history. What really blew my mind is that all of that guy's rants and threats are recorded on Google groups, and people can view them in all their absurd glory. And he continued nonetheless. Anyway - yes, I agree that ignoring posts is the best option once it's become really clear that a person is truly either a troll or just plain beyond reason. Nuff said by me - sorry for helping get things so off-topic. ;) Dear DW, Subject: Comparision between the dynamic behavior of the natural monkey-primate eye and the dynamic human-primate eye. Re: Fundamentally, if I wish to determine if a population of primate eyes "follow" the applied visual enviroment (in diopters) then I am going to restrict my testing to ONLY they monkey primate eye -- because obviously I would be prohibited from running a similar test on the human-primate eye. Since the test is (in concept) very simple, i.e., "input" versus "output" type scientific testing I can reach only one of two conclusions about the dynamic behavior of a POPULATION of natural eyes. The fundamental eye either is "dynamic" with respect to its average-visual environment -- or it is not. I consider this crucial scientific evidence -- to PRECEED any effort of prevention -- in humans. Since the decision would have to be made by the person concerned with PROTECTING his distant vision -- it follows that he should review both the experimental data -- and his own desire to protect his distant vision (say in entering a 4 year college.). It is clear that if you choose to ignore this type of technical analyis, and wear the minus lens -- then that is the end of that. But a review of this nature COULD help those with the motivation to do the work "correctly". It is obviously the antithesis of the minus-lens method put is place 400 years ago -- that works "instantly" but MIGHT have a "un-desired" secondary effect. Best, Otis I get the concept - I just think that the validity of extending evidence done on primates to support theories surrounding humans is tenuous AT BEST. Otis> That is both a crucial issue -- and a defining statement. I have no objection when a person makes that statement -- and rejects the use of the plus for prevention. But then there is no need for any further effort in using the plus-for-prevention, because you have made the final decision -- based on the experimental data itself. If you don't like the analysis -- then that is a different story. The physical construction of the eye may be very similar, but the behaviors and habits of the organism should be factored in as well Otis> In fact the human-primate (reading at -10 diopters) does things that CAN NOT be duplicated in the laboratory with primate-monkeys. But you can get a good idea about what the natural eye will do when you place a human-primate eye in this situation. - expecially if part of your argument contends that behavior early in life can have long-term effects. Otis> That is indeed a major argument. You have correctly stated the scientific thesis. Show a study containing HUMAN subjects and not PRIMATES, and you'll be far more convincing. Otis> Provided that the human-pilot (with the motivation) reviews the PRIMATE data FIRST. The I believe that the human would draw the correct conclusion and properly implement the PREVENTIVE method. But that indeed WILL depend on the insight and motivation of the person himself. Obviously some students will "turn on" to the concept of prevention, and other will not. Otis> For me -- the defining data is this primate data. But then that is the nature of a scientific argument. Best, Otis > then I am going to restrict my testing to ONLY they > monkey primate eye -- because obviously I would > be prohibited from running a similar test on the > human-primate eye. What prohibits you from reading the results published by trained researchers? -MT Dear Mike, Indeed I have read extensively the reports of trained researchers on the behavior of the natural eye. Indeed Professor Emertis Francis Young has proven to be a highly professional and skilled researcher in doin work to proven that the natural eye "tracks" or "follows" its average visual enviroment as a sophisticated system. But since you (as the "majority opinion") declare on your personal belief system, that all experimental data proven this sophtisticated relationship, then I must dispute you insistance that THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP. Under that circumstance I am going to trust the scientific data itself -- rather than your insistance that I should ignore it. But even so, the second-opinion is to RESPECT this type of experimental data -- and offer a person a choice in the matter -- as the second opinion. The individual has nothing to lose in this discussion. They can always turn the preventive method down -- with rather permanent results. Best, Otis > Indeed Professor Emertis Francis Young has proven > to be a highly professional and skilled researcher > in doin work to proven that the natural eye > "tracks" or "follows" its average visual enviroment > as a sophisticated system. I wasn't aware Dr. Young used plus to prevent myopia in humans. > But since you (as the "majority opinion") declare on > your personal belief system, that all experimental > data proven this sophtisticated relationship, then > I must dispute you insistance that THERE IS > NO RELATIONSHIP. And I must dispute your putting words in my mouth. THERE IS A RELATIONSHIP. CORRECTING MYOPIA WITH MINUS HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO ALTER THE RELATIONSHIP. CONTRAVENTION WITH PLUS HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO ALTER THE RELATIONSHIP. > Under that circumstance I am going to trust > the scientific data itself -- rather than > your insistance that I should ignore it. Until you can show the efficacy of your technique in humans, it belongs in alt.med.vision.improve. -MT Dear Mike, YOU DEMAND??? No, it is not you who decides this issue. The person who reviews the objective, scientific REPEATABLE data, will ultimately decide if he wishes to TAKE CONTROL and use the plus AGRESSIVELY before he begins wearing that minus. A number of pilots have done this -- and the expected result of completely elliminating the "near" enviroment with a plus is that the natural eye will change its refractive status in a plus direction at a very slow rate -- indeed. It takes considerable self-motivation to do this, and must not be considered a "medical" effort -- if you get my drift. Obviously no "medical" effort had even been attempted -- because you are in a position to prohibit it. That is why the primate data is iimportant -- for the person has to motiavtion to keep is vision clear in a four year college -- where the "down" rate is -1.3 diopters in four years, with the "spread" being -1.1 to -1.6 diopters. It does become a matter of a person's scientific judgment and motivation indeed. Best, Otis > YOU DEMAND??? I don't know what you mean. > No, it is not you who decides this issue. No. It's the FDA and the NIH and the researchers at several vision science centers. What do they have to say about it? > The person who reviews the objective, > scientific REPEATABLE data, will ultimately > decide if he wishes to TAKE CONTROL and use > the plus AGRESSIVELY before he begins wearing > that minus. You haven't produced any evidence that shows you can do this in humans. > A number of pilots have done this -- and the > expected result of completely elliminating the > "near" enviroment with a plus is that the > natural eye will change its refractive status > in a plus direction at a very slow rate -- indeed. I don't believe you. Nor do ophthalmologists or pediatricians. > It takes considerable self-motivation to do this, > and must not be considered a "medical" effort -- if > you get my drift. You haven't produced any evidence that shows this works in humans. If you get my drift. > Obviously no "medical" effort had even been > attempted -- because you are in a position > to prohibit it You haven't read them or don't believe them and therefore they don't exist. Ostrich. > That is why the primate data is iimportant -- for > the person has to motiavtion to keep is > vision clear in a four year college -- where > the "down" rate is -1.3 diopters in four years, > with the "spread" being -1.1 to -1.6 diopters. Please show us some evidence that your therapy works in humans. > It does become a matter of a person's scientific > judgment and motivation indeed. It becomes a matter of efficacy. Please show us your efficacy data or take your recommendations to alt.med.vision.improve. -MT dear foolish otis, here is some scientific data which supports the "majority opinion" and contradicts your uneducated model of the "input-output" theory which is based upon chicken, shrew, and monkey experiments. these below experiments are in HUMANS and thus are infinitely more relevant to prescribing eyeglasses than your older animal studies. when you have read them, and can comment intelligently on them, then please repost your remarks. otherwise, go off to alt.med.vision.improve and resume your faith-based snake-oil salesman diatribe there and not here. if you have some valid scientific studies published within the last 25 years to contribute to the discussion that support your theories, please provide them. we don't care about raphaelson. we don't want to here about one-off pilot engineer case studies. just real statistically valid scientific studies on humans. otherwise shut up and go away! ============================= 1.Chung K, Mohidin N, O'Leary DJ. Undercorrection of myopia enhances rather than inhibits myopia progression. Vision Res. 2002, 42: 2555-9. The Chung study is a small (n=94), 2 year randomized and masked prospective study comparing the effects of full-time undercorrection (UC, by approx 0.75 D) with full-time fully correction (FC) in young myopes (mean: -2.86 D). The study group comprised approximately 1.4 time the numbers of girls as boys with Chinese and Malay ethnic groups being approximately equally represented. Over the 2 years of the study, the FC group showed a progression of -0.77 D compared to the UC group that exhibited a progression of -1.00 D. Rates of eye growth also differed between the two groups, as expected, being slower for the FC group. The study suggests that leaving myopes partially uncorrected (i.e. with a net plus prescription) may in fact promote myopia development rather than reduce it. 2. COMET multicenter study on use of bifocal glasses to slow myopia progression. http://www.nei.nih.gov/neitrials/viewStudyWeb.aspx?id=9 In summary, results of COMET suggest that PALs should not be prescribed routinely for slowing myopia progression in children. However, they still may be prescribed for other ocular conditions. Findings from this study will influence ongoing and future studies of myopia interventions and mechanisms of eye growth. as you have been asked multiple times, please provide evidence that minus lenses cause the HUMAN (not chicken, shrew, or monkey) eye to become more myopic. IT JUST ISN'T SO! This major premise of your argument is an OLD WIVESTALE. Please see the following research article (on humans) and comment on it once you have read it and you understand it. Otherwise just shut up. ========================= Goss, D. (1984) Overcorrection as a means of slowing myopic progression. Am J Optom Physiol Opt., Feb;61(2):85-93. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=6703013&query_hl=3 Thirty-six subjects (18 males and 18 females) ranging in ages from 7.38 to 15.82 years received an overcorrection of 0.75 D over the power required to correct their myopia exactly. These 36 experimental subjects were matched by control subjects selected at random from the files of the Indiana University Optometry Clinics. The criteria used in matching were sex, beginning age, beginning refractive error, and duration of time covered by the record. The mean rate of change of refractive error for the experimental group was (minus indicating increase of myopia) -0.49 D/year (range, +0.37 to -1.95 D/year) on retinoscopy and -0.52 D/year (range, +0.21 to -1.32 D/year) on subjective refraction. The mean rate of change for the control group was -0.47 D/year (range, +0.06 to -2.03 D/year) on retinoscopy and -0.47 D/year (range, +0.28 to -1.72 D/year) on subjective refraction. Rates for the experimental and control groups were not significantly different. The results of this study do not support the hypothesis that an overcorrected myope has a lower rate of increase of myopia than a myope wearing a conventional spectacle correction. Obviously the initial intent of the Goss study was to investigate whether overminusing might actually reduce myopia progression. It proves that under the conditions of this study, it doesn't. And it shows that overminusing also doesn't stimulate myopia progression as Otis believes (his moronic "stairstep" analogy). Good article for our old buddy Otis to read. Guess it doesn't support Otis' "dynamic" "input/output" engineering model. There is a more recent study that does in fact show a slight reduction in myopia progression by overminusing. How does Otis explain that one? =========== > as you have been asked multiple times, please provide evidence that > minus lenses cause the HUMAN (not chicken, shrew, or monkey) eye to [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > an overcorrected myope has a lower rate of increase of myopia than a > myope wearing a conventional spectacle correction. Indeed Dr. Bates was a genius. I have more news. Yesterday one man who has bought my books and could not renounce his -25 D contact lenses visited me to talk about these matters and try a few relaxation methods. Of course we spent a lot of time trying to have some method working, but with few results. This is because he had worn glasses just until a couple of hours before, so the eyes were really stuck in their -25 D elongation. He could not even converge his eyes to read the chart at less than 10 cm. After these three hourse of practice, however, we walked home and then I suggested to stop and try to check his vision with a license plate on a car at about 12 meters. I asked him to guess the last letter, by simply telling how the sides of it were, if straight, if empty, if curved. He could not do this but just guessed a Z. I remonstrated with him because I did not ask him to guess THE LETTER but just its four sides, one at a time. He could not do this, I don't know why. He preferred to remain in his strange habit of thinking, fixed. Anyway, in fact on the plate there was a Z but it was the second letter from the right, not the first. I then told this to him, and he was quite amused for that. But I insisted to guess the four sides of the last letter. He then conceded to do so, but was not so right, he guessed right just two sides. However, when I said to him that it was a S, he said quite abruptly, "I have seen it in the exact moment you pronounced it!". Now how can a man with -25 D of contact lenses prescription see a letter Z and a letter S at ten meters or more, somebody of the learned men here may explain. -25D contacts huh? sure! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.